Iowa judges ousted after legalizing same-sex marriage to receive Profiles in Courage Award

Former Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus (left), and Justices David Baker (center) and Michael Streit, who were ousted by Iowa voters in November 2010 after declaring a same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, will receive the JFK Library's Profiles in Courage Award. / John Gaps III/KCCI,CBS/AP Photo

(CBS/AP) BOSTON - President John F. Kennedy's only surviving child is celebrating what would have been his 95th birthday this month by honoring three Iowa judges who were ousted after the court unanimously decided to legalize same-sex marriages.

Caroline Kennedy will also recognize the U.S. ambassador to Syria who risked his life to support opponents of President Basher Assad's regime.

Kennedy heads the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, which promotes the late president's memory and legacy. She is set to present the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award on Monday to former Iowa Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit, all of whom were pushed off the bench in a 2010 retention vote that capped a contentious campaign.

The three judges will receive a sterling silver ship's lantern symbolizing a beacon of hope. The award, which was designed by Kennedy's husband, Edwin Schlossberg, and crafted by Tiffany & Co., resembles one belonging to the U.S. Navy's oldest commissioned warship, the USS Constitution, or "Old Ironsides."

U.S. Ambassador in Syria Robert Ford, pictured covering his nose during a visit to a mass grave, in Jisr el-Shughour, Syria in June 2011, will also receive a Profiles in Courage Award for supporting peaceful protesters in the face of a crackdown by the Assad regime.

/ AP Photo/Bassem Tellawi, File

Ternus, Baker and Streit were among seven justices who unanimously decided in 2009 that an Iowa law restricting marriage to a man and a woman violated the state's constitution. Conservative groups and other gay marriage foes spent about $1 million on a political campaign to oust the judges, who chose not to raise money or campaign themselves to avoid dragging the judiciary into politics.

"The three judges are interesting and courageous on many levels," Kennedy told The Associated Press. "... Like many of the people who get this award, they don't consider that they are doing anything particularly courageous, they just feel they're doing what's right, they're doing their job."

Kennedy, who is a lawyer, said the three "knew when they were writing this decision that it was gonna be a pioneering decision and a landmark decision and would face a lot of popular opposition. They also were following very carefully the Iowa constitution and the rights that it gives to its citizens."

Profiles in Courage Award (John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum)

This year's Profile in Courage Award also highlights the dangers of politicizing the judiciary, which is supposed to be an independent branch that protects the civil rights of all Americans. The danger is particularly pronounced in areas where state and county judges spend growing amounts of money to get elected or fend off electoral challenges sponsored by groups promoting narrow agendas, she said.

The developing trend could eliminate an independent judiciary and taint the entire democratic system, Kennedy said.

"People aren't so much aware of it, but it's happening in judicial races much more than it ever did before, on the local level and even further up," Kennedy said. "States appoint their judges and elect their judges differently, so it's a harder thing to track — but I think, just as we are seeing ... increased amounts of money in legislative races, now we are getting to see it in the judiciary where it has a much more dangerous effect because those are not supposed to be politicized races."

Bob Vander Plaats, a Sioux City businessman and former Republican candidate for governor, led efforts to oust the three judges, arguing that being a servant of the law "doesn't give the Iowa Supreme Court the authority to legislate from the bench, execute from the bench or attempt to amend the Constitution."

The honor comes as same-sex marriage again becomes a hot political topic, with North Carolina voters set to decide Tuesday on a constitutional amendment that would define marriage between one man and woman as the only domestic legal union recognizable by law, thereby outlawing not only same-sex civil unions but heterosexual civil unions as well.

Same-sex marriage measure set for vote in North Carolina
Gay marriage foes sought to split gays, blacks
What makes N.C. different in gay marriage debate?

The issue has also jumped to the national stage, with Vice President Joe Biden's comments on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, in which he stated he was "absolutely comfortable" with the idea of same-sex marriage and that homosexuals should be entitled to the same civil rights in domestic unions as heterosexuals - a position seconded Monday morning by Education Secretary Arne Duncan on MSNBC.

Biden on same-sex marriage: "I am absolutely comfortable"

Monday's ceremony at the JFK Library and Museum will also honor U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford for ignoring repeated threats to his life and traveling around Syria to encourage and support peaceful protesters targeted by Assad's brutal crackdown.

The protests and the ensuing crackdown spawned military defections, an armed rebellion, assassinations of government and military officials, massacres of civilians and international condemnation. A truce set to begin on April 12 has failed to stop the bloodshed, raising fears that Syria is degenerating into civil war.

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[geoh777]

Many people are all for the U.S. being a democracy until democracy works against their notions of right and wrong, then the moral outrage begins. These are the same people who insist that moral or religious judgment has no part in the political or public arena. The complete hypocrisy of that is lost on nearly everyone, it seems.

[David Hoffman100]

I like the fact they did not raise funds for an election. I wish all states would get rid of judicial elections. The wisest judges do not always make the best campaigners. I have always thought that one of the reasons judges do not like cameras in the courtroom is that the way citizens decide whether to support a candidate for office is not the way they should be evaluating legal decisions. The written decisions and fillings in a constitutional law case are always more nuanced and detailed than the oral arguments.

[fixingit2002]

The bottom line is, people have the right to vote how they want. If the people of Iowa voted these judges out...I sure hate it for those who disagree but that's how our process works.

You don't get to overturn an election just because your candidate lost. As to who contributed the money? Well gee, that's been a problem in American Politics for as long as I can remember. But I saw very few democrats who say they value the democratic process complaining about money from George Soros pouring into Obama's campaign. That man isn't even from our nation and has no right to be involved at all...but there his money sits.

It is NOT any judge's job to rewrite the laws. They are to determine how a law applies. If you don't like a law, work with your legal representatives to have the law changed. But this business of having judges strike down a legal vote result? That's just wrong. That's a dictatorship of judges against the will of the majority.

People who don't like a particular state's laws have always had the right to move if they could not persuade others to agree and vote with them on their position based on reason and logic.

And before I get hit with "but this is where my job is", let me remind you that the battle-cry of those who support the atrocity we know as the TSA, has always been "you can always choose another mode of transportation" even though some jobs don't make that an option. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. No one is a prisoner and if you don't like something, change it within the legal means or move.

The majority spoke their will. A group of misguided judges decided to argue. The majority reacted by voting them out. After all, we DO still get to choose our leaders in this country, at least for a while longer.

Democracy at work is how I see it.

[fryzo266]

You are saying that when the supreme court struck down the "Jim Crow" laws and when the supreme court stuck down the segragation laws that it was bad and that the judiciary is out of line? The courts are to make sure that the legeslative and executive branches do honor the constitution. These are not "misguided judges" they are upholders of the constitution.

[Ali_Mo79]

Iowa is different from most states in that it doesn't elect it's Justices. Instead potential justices are required to enter an application with the Judicial Nomination Committee who go throw the applications and select from that a group of nominees. The Committee then sends the nominee applications to the Governor for him to review. From that list he/she makes the Supreme Court appointment. The justices then serves until it is voted that he/she not be retained or until they reach the retirement age of 72. This keeps the justices from having to focus on the politics of law and instead helps them to focus solely on their jobs, which is interpreting the law as it is written, in other words it keeps them honest. Also the retention vote by the citizens acts to keep the judicial system in Iowa balanced and fair. Which is strangely enough the job of the judicial branch as well, to keep the decisions of the executive and legislative branches balanced and fair.

The fact that you are associating campaign funding with the legal system is sad. The fact that these justices were ousted from their positions was expected. The fact that millions of dollars was spent to do it was also expected. However, if the citizens of the state had really wanted to change the law they would have voted to re-evaluate the state's constitution, as well as vote the justices out of office.

The justices in this case did not strike down a statute that was voted on by the people. These justices ruled that a legislative statute stating that marriage was between one man and one woman was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Which is their job. Whether people like it or not it's a fact. Just like those TSA agents who have to give you pat downs, it's not their fault you don't like it, it's just their job and that's what they are supposed to do.

I actually do agree with you on the one point though. If you don't like the laws of the state you're living in, go ahead and move. And that is democracy at work.

Our Nation wonders why our moral compass is broken? It is watching the destruction of our compass through the degradation of awards that represent "value" in our National Pride like this one being awarded to 3 of 7 individuals who abused the power of the State Constitution and Laws and were recognized by another Organization for this abuse. It is no different that our President getting the Nobel Peace Prize for being elected and continuing the multiple wars and conflicts that previously existed along with human rights violations.

These people who are attempting at changing our value system (and having the media SENSATIONALIZE it) are the real problem why there is a decay in our National position. Too bad the media does not inform the public that 31 States (over 50%) have voted Constitutionally to protect the marriage Act. Too bad the media has not told the public that Iowa is being held hostage from the legislation for being allowed to initiate a Constitutional Amendment to decide this by the PEOPLE! There is the "courage" that is with held and kept from the people so celebrities like the Kennedy's can give out awards while the people of Iowa have to wait frustrated in the streets until their representatives gather their "courage" to address this issue. I am sure Caroline Kennedy could use Marie Antoinette's quote "Let them eat cake".

[Ali_Mo79]

"Too bad the media has not told the public that Iowa is being held hostage from the legislation for being allowed to initiate a Constitutional Amendment to decide this by the PEOPLE!"

The state isn't being held hostage, the citizen's of Iowa had their chance to change the ruling and vote on the legislation during the last election. However, religious and anti-gay groups spent millions of dollars on running a campaign agains the judges and forgot to mention that if people wanted to rewrite the state Constitution they needed to vote to have the Constitution re-evaluated so that the section they justices used to make their decision could be re-written, making it Constitutionally legal to discriminate. Funny thing about that, you can only vote to have the Constitution re-evaluated every four years, so by misplacing their funds in a campaign attacking the justices instead of attacking the Constitution they figuratively shot themselves in the foot.

And just an FYI in your argument Carolin Kennedy couldn't use Marie Antoinette's quote "let them eat cake," because it would be inaccurate. Carolin Kennedy could have instead said, "let them toss each other's salad," much more factually accurate given the topic of discussion.

[marychgo]

Three cheers for the Kennedy Foundation, the Iowa Supreme Court justices, and Ambassador Ford!

Religious denominations have every right to limit their own ritual celebration of "marriage" in any way they want to: to believers, to one man and one woman, even to people who are brunets or blue-eyed or left-handed. We who don't belong to a particular denomination may find such restrictions idiotic, but we have no legal grounds for objecting to them, based on the First Amendment.

But "marriage" is ALSO a legal contract to which governments -- at the local, state, and federal level -- grant various rights and privileges. And governments DON'T have the right to discriminate! So any two citizens who are committed to building a life together have an absolute right to ask these governments to recognize their union and to grant them the rights and privileges governments grant to OTHER married couples.

The "special rights" whiners are CORRECT when they argue that, historically, most societies have not recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry. They might want to notice that, historically, most societies have also approved of slavery, racial hatred, rigid patriarchy, discrimination against and even murder of the disabled, and a host of other horrors that we would now consider crimes against humanity. Defending "traditional" marriage on the basis of history is not terribly compelling ("People in the past were stupid so we have to be stupid, too")....

[Dianne_Mo]

These judges had no legal right to change our constitution in Iowa w/o the voters approval..this is still being litigated and one day the citizens of Iowa will get the opportunity to restore the original constitution, thereby eliminating gay marriage in Iowa.

[Ali_Mo79]

These judges had every legal right under the constitution of both the state and the nation to rule based on their interpretation of the law as it was written. The outstanding men and women of the Iowa Supreme Court did nothing illegal as you put it, nor did they change the constitution. They did however make a ruling based on the way the constitution was written that the amendment stating that the only recognizable marriage in Iowa is between a man and a woman was unconstitutional. That is their job, to interpret the constitution. When the constitution states that "All men are created equal" that doesn't mean that if you are gay or a woman that you are created unequally and therefore deserve different rights than straight men. You will find that the majority of citizens in Iowa are not opposed to same sex marriage or they could really care less, and most of those that said they could care less when asked said they would vote to uphold the ruling as it didn't affect them so they didn't care. These judges deserve our respect and thanks for upholding our constitutional rights and giving the LGBT community the freedoms and rights that every other person in the fine state of Iowa deserves.

[takentothewoodshed]

I guess that means if "I" interpret marriage to include animals that's ok, right? What an ignorant slob you are. The Constitution is not open for interpretation as I see it (or anyone else), It is to be upheld as it was written. Libtards have run as far as they can from the only absolute truth, Gods word. A day of reckoning is awaiting these perverts. The founding fathers could not have dreamed that a perverted sex act would be touted as some kind of right.

[stormerF69]

Any time you want to lose your job just spit in the people's face who you work for ,there is always some fool who will applaud you on your way down.

[stevador39]

The gay issue is obscuring the fact that men have rights written into the the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Women and their childlren have no rights written in law. This results in two milion women being beaten, raped, having fetuses cut from their bodies, burned alive and generally terrorized. The U.S. has a rising infant mortality rate that is almost at the thrid world level. High infant mortality is the hallmark of third world nations.

[stormerF69]

You need to do some research on infant mortality,some counties do not count infant deaths till they have survived at least a month,calling them still born thus not infant mortalities,as we do.

[magnumdr]

Gay rights. What about non gay rights. Why don't the people of this World have any say in what they think is right and wrong with gays getting married?. We seem to not have any morrals when it comes to the things we all know that are wrong. Sex seems to be all people think about today and I believe that the good Lord meant for a man and a woman to be united in marrige. The end!

[democracy8]

Hate to be the one to break the news to you, magnum, but the US is NOT a theocracy.

[markamichaud]

Who gives you the right to judge what is right and wrong?